HB1131– Improving solid waste management outcomes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Berry (D; 36th District; Northeast Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Doglio & 16 other Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 17th; replaced by a substitute and amended by the prime sponsor February 2nd, then passed out of committee. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing there February 15th. Replaced by a second substitute, amended, and passed out of committee February 21st. Referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5154 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments – The bill is 143 pages long, so trying to summarize the details seems ill advised. I’ve tried to cover the important points.

Changes made in House Environment and Energy –
There’s a several page summary by staff of the changes in the substitute at the beginning of that. The amendment struck and replaced all the sections about the optional beverage deposit return program. There’s a three page staff summary of those changes at the end of the amendment.

Changes in Appropriations –
Staff summarized the additional changes in the 2nd substitute in several pages at the beginning of it. (The amendment exempted packaging for certain insecticides, fungicides, and rodenticides from the requirements.)

Summary –
The bill would create a system funded and managed by the producers for dealing with used packaging and paper products sold or supplied to consumers for personal use. It would create requirements for postconsumer recycled content. It would create a deposit program as an optional alternative for managing beverage containers.

Producer Product Responsibility Organizations –
Producers would have to join a producer responsibility organization, report annually to the Department of Ecology on the covered materials for which they were responsible, pay their shares of the cost of running the program including needed infrastructure investments, pay an annual fee to cover Ecology’s costs in administering and enforcing the program, and meet performance targets improving over time for reducing the production of plastic components, the reuse of collected materials, and their recycling (but not for simply collecting materials, I think.). Producers would also fund a statewide needs assessment of solid waste issues and the ongoing work of a new solid waste advisory council. Detailed plans for managing covered materials, meeting a long list of requirements, would be due by July 2027 (and be subject to approval by Ecology); reporting by organizations on their performance would begin in July 2028. (Products couldn’t be labeled as recyclable unless they were covered by a program.)

A consultant would do the needs assessment, covering a long list of issues such as current and future feasible infrastructure and services, costs, education and outreach, criteria for handling different products, labor and social justice concerns, litter and marine debris prevention, toxic substances in covered products, and any other items the Department added. The consultant would also recommend performance targets designed to be reachable statewide by 2032. (As far as I can see, organizations would establish their own targets in their plans.) The advisory council and stakeholders would have an opportunity to review and comment on scope for the study and on the draft, and Ecology would be authorized to update it at five year intervals.

Plans would have to be developed in consultation with stakeholders and the advisory council. Plans would include arrangements for continuing service if an organization stopped providing them. and consumer education and outreach activities to support the achievement of the performance rates. Plans would include ways to incentivize the redesign of covered products to be reusable, recyclable, or compostable; as well incentivizing preventing waste and reducing consumer packaging. They’d have to eco-modulate setting the fees for producers to encourage the use of packaging designs that reduce products’ environmental impacts. They’d have to be updated regularly.

Organizations would have to collaborate with and reimburse regulated private curbside collection programs as well as those existing government programs that chose to participate. They’d have to provide a variety of other convenient ways to recover used materials, including collection sites all around the state. Getting materials into the system would have to be free, easily accessible, and meet various other requirements. (Retailers could choose to host collection sites or events.) If organizations contracted with service providers to meet their obligations, those providers would have to meet various labor and reporting standards. Organizations would have to report to Ecology on their activities each year.

Programs would have to prioritize waste reduction, then recycling, before incinerating or landfilling materials. There are detailed requirements for collection and management of materials, and for reporting by producer organizations and processing facilities.

Requirements for Postconsumer Recycled Content –
The bill would replace current requirements for recycled content in various products; these would apply to household cleaning product containers; personal care product packages, most beverage containers; tubs; thermoform containers; single-use cups; and cannabis containers or packaging materials that were made of plastic. Minimum recycled content requirements for these different products would come into effect at different levels in different years between 2024 and 2036. The producer responsibility organizations representing the producers of these products would report to Ecology annually on their performance. The department could adjust the requirements depending on various factors, and assess penalties for failures to meet the requirements. The bill adds new recycled content requirements for collection bins, pots and trays, and pesticide containers made of plastic.

Beverage Container Deposit Program –

Producer responsibility organizations would be allowed to create a 10¢ deposit return system for glass, metal, and plastic bottles or cans as an alternative to managing beverage containers through the recycling requirements. (Cartons, foil pouches, drink boxes, metal container that need a tool to open, and containers for dairy milk or formula wouldn’t be included.) This system would be created if distributors of the majority of beverages in qualifying containers formed a distributor responsibility organization; in that case, all the distributors of those containers would have to join that organization, or meet the requirements for an organization themselves. Ecology would implement, administer, and enforce the program, and collect a fee covering those costs; the distributors would pay for operating the system, and for half the costs of the advisory council and the needs study. Organizations would have to submit detailed plans for deposit return programs for Ecology’s approval, meeting a variety of requirements. Plans would have to include education and outreach; stakeholder consultations; methods for paying the refund to consumers, governments, and processing facilities returning containers; an additional premium for containers returned by non-profits serving very low income individuals who rely on refunds; and at least 270 free convenient bulk drop-off locations for bagged containers around the state, convenient to places selling beverages in containers. Dealers wouldn’t be required to accept bags or provide drop-off sites, though. If organizations contract with service providers to meet their obligations, there are labor and social justice standards for those. Unclaimed refunds would have to be invested in operations and infrastructure supporting the reuse and recycling of qualifying beverage containers. By 2031, an organization would have to demonstrate that all the containers in its program were designed to be reusable or recyclable, and there would be specified gradually increasing requirements for the percentages of containers that were actually recycled or reused between 2028 and 2035. There would be detailed reporting requirements. Ecology would also collect funds from distributor organizations for a five year program to reimburse curbside collection programs for revenue losses resulting from reductions in the number of containers in those bins.

In addition –
By December 2025, Ecology would have to complete a study of options for improving the convenience of state product stewardship, takeback, and producer responsibility programs, including establishing centralized takeback centers for consumers; and make policy recommendations to the Legislature about improving the environmental end of life management of products covered by these. Ecology and the Department of Revenue would do a study of the bill’s effects on the litter rates of covered products and containers, and make recommendations on possible improvements to the structure of the tax.

The bill also amends details of some existing laws, including ones about solid waste in general, ones about the regulation of some solid waste companies by the UTC, and ones about cannabis packaging, to take account of the additional activities of producer responsibility organizations and beverage distributors that the bill envisions.